Case Studies On Decriminalization Of Homosexuality
1. Naz Foundation v. Government of NCT of Delhi (2009) — India
Background:
The Naz Foundation, an NGO working on HIV/AIDS issues, challenged Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), a colonial-era law that criminalized "carnal intercourse against the order of nature," which was interpreted to include consensual homosexual acts.
Key Points:
The Delhi High Court ruled that Section 377, insofar as it criminalized consensual sexual acts between adults in private, violated fundamental rights under the Indian Constitution.
The Court held that Section 377 infringed on the rights to equality (Article 14), freedom of expression (Article 19), and protection of life and personal liberty (Article 21).
This judgment was historic because it recognized the dignity, privacy, and autonomy of LGBTQ+ individuals and decriminalized consensual homosexual acts among adults.
Impact:
This judgment was the first significant legal step towards LGBTQ+ rights in India.
However, it was later overturned by the Supreme Court in 2013 but eventually led to the landmark Supreme Court judgment in 2018 that fully decriminalized homosexuality.
2. Lawrence v. Texas (2003) — United States
Background:
John Lawrence and Tyron Garner were arrested in Texas for engaging in consensual homosexual intercourse, violating Texas’s "Homosexual Conduct" law.
Key Points:
The U.S. Supreme Court struck down the Texas statute criminalizing consensual same-sex sexual activity.
The Court held that the law violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, protecting the right to privacy and liberty in intimate decisions.
The Court emphasized that adults have the right to engage in private consensual sexual conduct without government intervention.
Impact:
This ruling invalidated similar sodomy laws in 13 other states.
It was a landmark decision affirming the constitutional rights of LGBTQ+ individuals and paved the way for further advancements in LGBTQ+ rights, including same-sex marriage.
3. Toonen v. Australia (1994) — United Nations Human Rights Committee
Background:
Nicholas Toonen, a Tasmanian citizen, filed a complaint with the UN Human Rights Committee arguing that Tasmania’s criminalization of consensual homosexual acts violated his right to privacy.
Key Points:
The Committee held that laws criminalizing consensual same-sex sexual activity violated Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which protects against arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy.
The Committee found that the law in Tasmania was inconsistent with the ICCPR and recommended repeal.
Impact:
The Australian government urged Tasmania to repeal its laws, which it eventually did in 1997.
This was one of the first international human rights decisions to affirm privacy rights for LGBTQ+ individuals and influenced other countries and regions to reconsider anti-sodomy laws.
4. Dudgeon v. United Kingdom (1981) — European Court of Human Rights
Background:
Jeffrey Dudgeon challenged Northern Ireland’s laws criminalizing consensual homosexual acts, arguing they violated his right to privacy.
Key Points:
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled that Northern Ireland’s laws violated Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the right to respect for private and family life).
The Court acknowledged that criminalization of private consensual homosexual acts was an interference with privacy rights and was not necessary in a democratic society.
Impact:
This case led to the decriminalization of homosexual acts in Northern Ireland in 1982.
The ruling established a precedent in Europe affirming privacy and human rights protections for LGBTQ+ individuals.
5. Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) — India
Background:
A five-judge Supreme Court bench revisited the issue of Section 377 IPC after the 2009 Delhi High Court judgment was overturned.
Key Points:
The Supreme Court unanimously decriminalized consensual homosexual acts between adults.
It held that criminalizing homosexuality violated fundamental rights to equality, privacy, freedom of expression, and dignity.
The Court emphasized that the LGBTQ+ community has the right to live with dignity and that sexual orientation is an essential attribute of privacy and identity.
Impact:
This landmark judgment restored and expanded the rights of LGBTQ+ individuals in India.
It was hailed as a major victory for human rights and equality.
Summary
| Case | Jurisdiction | Year | Key Legal Principle | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Naz Foundation v. Delhi | India | 2009 | Right to privacy, dignity; struck down Section 377 | Decriminalization by High Court |
| Lawrence v. Texas | USA | 2003 | Due process; right to privacy | Struck down sodomy law |
| Toonen v. Australia (UN) | International | 1994 | Right to privacy under ICCPR | International condemnation, repeal of laws |
| Dudgeon v. UK | Europe | 1981 | Right to private life under ECHR | Decriminalized in Northern Ireland |
| Navtej Singh Johar v. India | India | 2018 | Fundamental rights to privacy, dignity, equality | Full decriminalization by Supreme Court |
RELATED Blog
0 comments